A.M. No. 440-CFI September 30, 1974
REMEDIOS I. JUGUETA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, Court of First Instance, Tarlac, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Remedios I. Jugueta charged Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros with favoring the accused in a rape case (Criminal Case No. 526) where her daughter, Marissa, was the victim. The specific incident occurred on June 6, 1973, when the prosecuting fiscal called the accused, Ruben Domingo, and the offended party, Marissa Jugueta, into the judge’s chambers for a conference, excluding Marissa’s mother who was present in the courtroom. During this meeting, the accused proposed marriage to Marissa, which she declined. As Marissa was leaving, the accused kissed her on the cheek. Upon witnessing this, Judge Boncaros remarked, “Bakit sa pisngi hindi sa labi” (Why the cheek not the lips). Believing this demonstrated bias, the complainant filed this administrative case.
During the investigation by Justice Pacifica de Castro, the complainant no longer appeared, and her husband manifested her lack of interest in pursuing the complaint, especially since the respondent judge had already inhibited himself from the rape case. Nevertheless, testimony was taken from Marissa Jugueta and the respondent judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros should be held administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge based on the incident in his chambers.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the charge of favoring the accused. However, the Court strongly admonished Judge Boncaros for conduct failing to meet the required standards of prudence and propriety. The legal logic centers on the judge’s duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. First, the Court found it unwise and indiscreet for the judge to allow his chambers to be used for a conference between the fiscal, the accused, and the minor victim without her parent present. This act exposed the judiciary to suspicion, as such a meeting could naturally be perceived as an attempt to explore a settlement, especially since marriage could extinguish the criminal action. The judge’s facilitation of this environment, given the legal context, demonstrated a lack of prudence.
Second, the Court rejected the judge’s claim that his remark (“Why the cheek not the lips”) was made in anger. The Court found this assertion unbelievable and ridiculous, reasoning that genuine indignation would have produced a reprimand, not a frivolous comment that implicitly encouraged the accused’s inappropriate act. The remark was deemed an unbecoming levity offensive to the feelings of a rape victim. The Court emphasized that a judge’s private and official conduct must always be beyond reproach to maintain public respect for the judiciary. While the core charge was unsubstantiated, the judge’s incidental actions warranted an admonition to uphold the norm of conduct expected from his exalted office.